Comparison of a Vibration Roller and a Nonvibration Roller Intervention on Knee Range of Motion and Pressure Pain Threshold: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Authors:
- Scott W. CheathamScott W. Cheatham
- Kyle R. StullKSKyle R. Stull
- Morey J. KolberMKMorey J. Kolber
- 1 January 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Human Kinetics in Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
- Vol. 28 (1) , 39-45
Abstract
Background: Roller massage (RM) has become a common intervention among health and fitness professionals. Recently, manufacturers have merged the science of vibration therapy and RM with the development of vibration rollers. Of interest, is the therapeutic effects of such RM devices. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a vibration roller and nonvibration roller intervention on prone knee-flexion passive range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the quadriceps musculature. Methods: Forty-five recreationally active adults were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: vibration roller, nonvibration roller, and control. Each roller intervention lasted a total of 2 minutes. The control group did not roll. Dependent variables included prone knee-flexion ROM and PPT measures. Statistical analysis included parametric and nonparametric tests to measure changes among groups. Results: The vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in PPT (180 kPa, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (112 kPa, P < .001) and control (61 kPa, P < .001). For knee flexion ROM, the vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in ROM (7°, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (5°, P < .001) and control (2°, P < .001). Between groups, there was a significant difference in PPT between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .03) and vibration roller and control (P < .001). There was also a significant difference between the nonvibration roller and control (P < .001). For knee ROM, there was no significant difference between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .31). A significant difference was found between the vibration roller and control group (P < .001) and nonvibration roller and control group (P < .001). Conclusion: The results suggest that a vibration roller may increase an individual’s tolerance to pain greater than a nonvibration roller. This investigation should be considered a starting point for future research on this technology.Keywords
This publication has 38 references indexed in Scilit:
- Whole-body vibration training improves flexibility, strength profile of knee flexors, and hamstrings-to-quadriceps strength ratio in femalesJournal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 2013
- Potential Beneficial Effects of Whole-Body Vibration for Muscle Recovery After ExerciseJournal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 2012
- Effects of whole body vibration therapy on main outcome measures for chronic non-specific low back pain: A single-blind randomized controlled trialJournal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 2011
- Reliability of the Passive Knee Flexion and Extension Tests in Healthy SubjectsJournal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 2010
- Whole Body Vibration as an Adjunct to Static StretchingInternational Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- Vibration as an exercise modality: how it may work, and what its potential might beEuropean Journal of Applied Physiology, 2009
- Reliability of the Ely's test for assessing rectus femoris muscle flexibility and joint range of motionJournal of Orthopaedic Research, 2008
- Interrater Reliability of Algometry in Measuring Pressure Pain Thresholds in Healthy Humans, Using Multiple RatersThe Clinical Journal of Pain, 2007
- Clinical utility of the Duncan‐Ely test for rectus femoris dysfunction during the swing phase of gaitDevelopmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 2003
- Analysis of Pre‐test‐Post‐test Control Group Designs in Educational ResearchEducational Psychology, 1995